This word, beside its common acceptation, is taken in Scripture for grandfather, great-grandfather, or the founder of a family, how remote soever. So the Jews in our Saviour’s time called Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, their fathers. Jesus Christ is called the Son of David, though David was many generations distant from him. By father is likewise understood the institutor of a certain profession. Jabal “was father of such as dwell in tents, and such as have cattle.” Jubal “was father of all such as handle the harp and organ,” or flute, &c, Gen. iv, 20, 21. Huram is called father of the king of Tyre, 2 Chron. ii, 13; and, 2 Chron. iv, 16, even of Solomon, because he was the principal workman, and chief director of their undertakings. The principal prophets were considered as fathers of the younger, who were their disciples, and are called sons of the prophets, 2 Kings ii, 12. Father is a term of respect given by inferiors to superiors. “My father,” said Naaman’s attendants to him, “if the prophet had bid thee do some great thing,” 2 Kings v, 13; and so the king of Israel addresses the prophet Elisha, 2 Kings vi, 21. Rechab, the founder of the Rechabites, is called their father, Jer. xxxv, 6. A man is said to be a father to the poor and orphans, when he supplies their necessities, and sympathizes with their miseries, as a father would do toward them: “I was a father to the poor,” says Job, xxix, 16. God declares himself to be the “Father of the fatherless, and Judge of the widow,” Psalm lxviii, 5. God is frequently called our heavenly Father, and simply our Father; eminently the Father, Preserver, and Protector of all, especially of those who invoke him, and serve him: “Is he not thy Father that bought thee?” says Moses, Deut. xxxii, 6. Since ...the coming of Jesus Christ, we have a new right to call God our Father, by reason of the adoption which our Saviour has merited for us, by clothing himself in our humanity, and purchasing us by his death: “Ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God,” Romans viii, 15. Job entitles God “the Father of rain,” Job xxxviii, 28; he produces it, and causes it to fall. The devil is called the father of the wicked and the father of lies, John viii, 44. He deceived Eve and Adam; he introduced sin and falsehood; he inspires his followers with his spirit and sentiments. The father of Sichem, the father of Tekoah, the father of Bethlehem, &c, signify the chief persons who inhabited these cities; he who built or rebuilt them. Adam is the first father, the father of the living; Abraham is the father of the faithful, the father of the circumcision; called also the “father of many nations,” because many people sprung from him; as the Jews, Ishmaelites, Arabs, &c. God is called “the Father of spirits,” Heb. xii, 9. He not only creates them, but he justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies them, and thus confers upon them eternal happiness.
[534 words — estimated reading time: 4 minutes]
a term of honour applied to the first and most eminent writers of the Christian church. Those of the first century are called Apostolical fathers; those of the first three centuries, and till the council of Nice, Ante-Nicene; and those later than that council, Post-Nicene. Learned men are not unanimous concerning the degree of esteem which is due to these ancient fathers. Some represent them as the most excellent guides, while others place them in the very lowest rank of moral writers, and treat their precepts and decisions as perfectly insipid, and, in many respects, pernicious. It appears, however, incontestable, that, in the writings of the primitive fathers are many sublime sentiments, judicious thoughts, and several things well adapted to form a religious temper, and to excite pious and virtuous affections. At the same time, it must be confessed, that, after the earliest age, they abound still more with precepts of an excessive and unreasonable austerity, with stoical and academical dictates, with vague and indeterminate notions, and, what is still worse, with decisions absolutely false, and in evident opposition to the commands of Christ. Though the judgment of antiquity in some disputable points may certainly be useful, yet we ought never to consider the writings of the fathers as of equal authority with the Scriptures. In many cases they may be deemed competent witnesses, but we must not confide in their verdict as judges. As Biblical critics they are often fanciful and injudicious, and their principal value consists in this, that the succession of their writings enables us to prove the existence and authenticity of the sacred books, up to the age of the Apostles. The following is a list of the entire fathers: Contemporaries of the Apostles, Barnabas, Clement of ...Rome, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp. Papias, A. D. 116; Justin Martyr, 140; Dionysius of Corinth, 170; Tatian, 172; Hegesippus, 173; Melito, 177; Irenæus, 178; Athenagoras, 178; Miltiades, 180; Theophilus, 181; Clement of Alexandria, 194; Tertullian, 200; Minutius Felix, 210; Ammonius, 220; Origen, 230; Firmilian, 233; Dionysius of Alexandria, 247; Cyprian, 248; Novatus, or Novatian, 251; Arnobius, 306; Lactantius, 306; Alexander of Alexandria, 313; Eusebius, 315; Athanasius, 326; Cyril of Jerusalem, 348; Hilary, 354; Epiphanius, 368; Basil, 370; Gregory of Nazianzum, 370; Gregory of Nyssa, 370; Optatus, 370; Ambrose, 374; Philaster, 380; Jerome, 392; Theodore of Mopsuestia, 394; Ruffin, 397; Augustine, 398; Chrysostom, 398; Sulpitius Severus, 401; Cyril of Alexandria, 412; Theodoret, 423; and Gennadius, 494. Archbishop Wake, in his _Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England_ has very satisfactorily shown, that the deference paid by Protestants to the Christian fathers of the first three ages, is neither of such an idolatrous description as is generally represented, nor is their authority ever extolled to an equality with that of the Holy Scriptures. “Though we have appealed,” he says, “to the churches of the first ages for new proofs of the truth of our doctrine, it is not that we think that the doctors of those times had more right to judge of our faith than those had that followed them; but it is because after a serious examination we have found, that, as for what concerns _the common belief_ that is among us, they have believed and practised the same things without adding other opinions or superstitions that destroy them,--wherein they have acted conformably to their and our rule, THE WORD OF GOD: notwithstanding, it cannot be denied, but that they effectually fell into some wrong opinions, as that of the Millenaries and infant communion,” &c. The usefulness and necessity of studying the ancient fathers have been defended by many persons eminent for their learning and piety. Archbishop Usher was one who beyond all men then living knew the vast importance of these studies, and had derived the greatest benefits from them. The following brief advice, in the language of Dr. Parr, his erudite biographer, will convey his sentiments on this very interesting subject: “Indeed he had so great an esteem of the ANCIENT AUTHORS, for the acquiring any solid learning, whether sacred or profane, that his advice to young students, either in divinity or antiquity, was, not to spend too much time in epitomes, but to set themselves to read the ancient authors themselves; as, to begin with the FATHERS, and to read them according to the ages in which they lived, (which was the method he had taken himself,) and, together with them, carefully to peruse the CHURCH HISTORIANS that treated of that age in which those fathers lived: by which means the student would be better able to perceive the reason and meaning of divers passages in their writings, (which otherwise would be obscure,) when he knew the original and growth of those heresies and heterodox opinions against which they wrote, and may also better judge what doctrines, ceremonies, and opinions prevailed in the church in every age, and by what means introduced.”
[818 words — estimated reading time: 5 minutes]
FATHERS OF THE CHURCH. Ecclesiastically the word “father” is used in a variety of secondary significations. In the Old Testament even, we find the name applied to priests (Judg. xvii. 10, xviii. 19), and to prophets (2 Kings ii. 12, vi. 21, xiii. 14), as well as to kings (2 Kings v. 13); and in the days of later Judaism there was a definite office which was known as that of the Father of the Synagogue. In the Christian church almost every kind of spiritual relationship in which age or authority was in any way implied came to be expressed by some word denoting paternity. Thus we find such names as abba, papa, pater, bestowed occasionally upon godfathers, confessors, instructors, and almost invariably upon bishops and heads of monasteries The decrees of the council of Nice are often referred to as those of the 318 fathers. The expression “church fathers” (patre3 ecclesiastici), however, has come to be used in a comparatively definite and restricted sense, as denoting in the aggregate those teachers of the ancient church who, from the close of the apostolic age onwards, either orally or in writing expounded and defended the orthodox faith, and came to be acknowledged, either by tacit consent or by express declaration of the church, as duly qualified exponents of her doctrines. The title of father is generally held to imply soundness of doctrine, holiness of life, the approval of the church, and undoubted antiquity (Perrone). The word itself is fitted to suggest the idea of age, and also some such notion as that which is expressed in 1 Cor. iv. 15....
The patristic period of the church’s history is generally held to begin with the close of the apostolic age; but historians are not agreed as to the date at which it may be said to have closed. Some Roman Catholic writers speak of Bernard, who died in 1153, as having been the “last of the fathers,” while Greek patristic is often brought down so far as to the council ofFlorence. But it is usual to speak of the scholastic period as having begun with Anselm; and there seems to be no good reason for removing Bernard from the list of the schoolmen. As no very important author either in Latin or in Greek can be assigned to the centuries immediately preceding Anselm, it may therefore be said, roughly speaking, that the patristic period practically closed for the Eastern Church with Joannes Damascenus, and for the Western with Gregory the Great.
The patri.stic canon has never been quite definitely fixed, and no precise line of demarcation can be drawn between those ancient teachers of Christianity who are and those who are not entitled to be reckoned “fathers.” The name is often bestowed on some whose title when viewed from the standpoint of rigid orthodoxy cannot but be regarded as somewhat doubtful. While Arius and Eusebius of Nicomedia have obviously no title to be called “fathers,” it has not been thought necessary to withhold the honourable appellation from Origen or Tertullian. The authors usually named as fathers may be arranged according to chronology into three groups, called respectively the apostolic, the primitive, and the post-Nicene. The apostolic fathers, that is to say, the fathers who were to some extent contemporary with the apostles, are Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, the author of the Shepherd of Hernias, and the author of the Epistle of Barnabas (see Apostolic Fathers). The chief primitive or ante-Nicene fathers are Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, Tertullian, Gregory Thaumaturgus. Among the post-Nicene fathers may°be mentioned Ambrose, Athanasius, Augustine, Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyril of Alexandria, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nazianzum, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory the Great, Hilary, Jerome, and Leo. A distinction is usually recognized between the patres and those who were merely scriptores ecclesiastici, and it is to the latter category that such writers as Eusebius and Socrates the historians most properly belong. The Eastern and the Western Church have each four authors of note whom they recognize as fathers par excellence. Those of the Eastern are Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom, and Gregory of Nazianzum. Those of the Western are Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, and Gregory,—the fathers respectively of her monastic system, of her sacerdotal authority, of her scientific theology, and of her popular religion (Milman, Latin Christianity, b. it c. 4).
The study of the fathers has sometimes been regarded as constituting a distinct discipline called patrology or patristic, which, however, practically resolves itself into the church history of the first six centuries. For information on the individual fathers and on the influence they exerted upon one another and upon the thought and life of the church the reader is referred to the various articles, biographical, archaeological, and historical, relating to that period.
The much-disputed question as to the authority of the fathers resolves itself into the more general one as to the place of tradition considered as a source of dogma and a rule of life apart from the scriptures (see vol. v. p. 759). There seems to be no sufficient evidence for the statement made by Turrettin and others to the effect that some Catholic writers set the writings of the fathers individually on a level with the canonical scriptures; and it is certainly an exaggeration to say that Cardinal Cajetan regarded them as having no authority at all. The Tridentine doctrine is that no one is entitled to interpret scripture in a sense contrary to the interpretations of holy mother church or to the unanimoιιs consent of the fathers. Roman Catholic writers accordingly as a rule attach comparatively little weight to the peculiarities of individual fathers, and hold themselves committed to nothing that is not established by what they consider to be unanimous and unvarying tradition. They distinguish, moreover, between the function of the fathers as witnesses and their function as instructors. As witnesses to the tradition and teaching of the church, they give testimony which is binding on the Catholic conscience; as independent teachers, they are entitled to be listened to with deference and respect, but their interpretations and arguments are to be freely accepted or as freely rejected according to their merits. Protestant writers, while fully admitting the merits, literary and other, of many of the fathers, usually dwell much upon the admitted fact of their fallibility, and strive to show that the attempt to establish an unambiguous tradition by their means is in very many cases much more illusory than Catholic writers are disposed to allow. They do not, however, deny that on many important points there is such a thing as a consensus patrum; but this they regard as having at best no other authority than what is merely human and ecclesiastical, the Bible alone being the supreme rule of faith and life. The fundamental Protestant antithesis to the Tridentine doctrine according to which the canonical books and the traditions preserved by the church are to be received and reverenced “pari pietatis effectu ac reverentia”
is very clearly expressed in the sixth Article of the Church of England which declares that “Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.”
The first writer in patrology may be said to have been Jerome, himself one of the greatest of the fathers. His work, De Viris Illustribus, sive Catalogus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum, was reprinted, along with the similar works of Gennadius of Marseilles, Isidore of Seville, and lldefonso of Toledo, by Fabricius in his Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica (1718). Among modern writers on this subject Mohler (Patrologie, 1842), Alzog (Grundriss der Patrologie, 1866), Engelhardt (Littcrarische Leitfaden zu Vorlesungen über die Patristik, 1823), and J. E. L. Danz (Initia doctrinae patristicoe, 1839) may be referred to. See also Cave’s Apostolici (1677) and Ecclesiastici (1683), Ittigii Tractatus de Bitt. Patr. (Lips.. 1707), and Dowling’s Notitia Scriptorum SS. Patrum (Oxon. 1839). The most important collective editions of the fathers are the Latin Magna Bibliotheca Veterum Patrum of De la Bigne (Paris, 1575), of which the Maxima Bibliotheca (Lyons, 1677) is an improved reprint, and the exhaustive Patrologies cursus completus of Migne, in which the collection of Latin authors, brought down to the time of Innocent III., occupies 221 volumes (Paris, 1844-1855), while the Greek division, extending to the council of Florence, is completed in 166 vols. (Paris, 1857-1866).
[1,430 words — estimated reading time: 9 minutes]
